"An interesting patent application recently filed by Microsoft may offer a glimpse at the future of the Windows interface. The patent describes a 'method for managing windows in a display' that seems to describe a method of task switching that is neither Taskbar nor Expose, but something in between." It reminds me of a feature called 'iconify', where you can minimise windows into an icon on the desktop (as CDE has, for instance), a feature I miss in most modern desktop environments.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2005-07-06
Pardon, but there is a *GIANT* difference between a person(s) coming up with a really cool idea which enhances their product and doing what the likes of ELOAS does.
One invests money into R&D to create technology that enhances their own products to have a competitive edge over rivals - patents protect that idea from being ripped off.
The other hand, you have scum sucking roaches such as ELOAS who are merely patent harvesting lawyers coming up with far reaching generalised descriptions for so-called 'inventions'. They then gang up on companies with a band of lawyers hoping that the mere presence will scare the company into submission without challenge.
Microsoft seem to be 'getting in' on the patent harvesting industry - I have no problems trademarking names and so forth - but really, when you patenting like the above, you end up in a situation where not only those which directly copy, but those who might even *appear* to have a similar action, come under the spotlight of lawyers who litigate at the drop of a hat.
Edited 2007-07-17 11:37
Member since:2006-02-01
In general, yes. Your invention, your rules -- for 20 years, at least.
But it's with things like this that the notion of "software inventions" breaks down.
Let's say you're a mechanical engineer and you come up with a new way to make, say, a snack vending machine. You file a patent for it. In your patent application you would have to supply great detail about your invention, and exactly how it works, and so on. Every country has slightly different wordings, but in general the detail should be sufficient to allow somebody else to go away and build your invention purely from your drawings and description.
For software, the equivalent requirement would be at least the algorithms used, if not the actual source code itself.
Furthermore, you would never see a patent granted just on the *idea* of a magic box that gives you snacks when you put money into it. And yet this is what happens in the software world all the time. Rather than patenting a specific *implementation* of an idea, we instead see patents being granted which cover *all* possible ways of doing something.
If software were held to the same standards as physical objects, I don't think so many people would have a problem with them. Then the person with the best implementation of a specific idea would still be able to benefit from it. But instead we have the absurd situation whereby, to take an example off the top of my head, Red Hat can't ship an NTFS driver due to Microsoft patents, even though no-one has any idea how Microsoft's implementation for reading and writing to NTFS actually works.
All in all I'm very glad to live in a country that takes a sensible view with regard to software patents: they're simply not allowed. Rule Britannia!
Edited 2007-07-17 11:42
Member since:2005-11-02
In general, yes. Your invention, your rules -- for 20 years, at least.
Yes but it is not MS's invention they are just lifting prior art from the history of the Unix desktop. So the patent is invalid - got a couple of million dollars to defeat it in court.
The patent system is broken.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-03-29
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2005-07-13
Or even better, how about this one: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070717-microsoft-patents-the...
Yes, they are.
Member since:2005-07-06
<Sure, it looks like an interesting concept, nothing revolutionary, but interesting.
My question to every U.S. citizen: Do you like the fact that ideas like this get patented?
For me, this is just another example of how sick software patents are.>
I am against software patents but the thing about this that is the most annoying is that I would be supprised if microsoft ever uses this.
That being said, the only reason they patented this is to keep others from competing against them using that concept.
It should most certainly be illegal to patent something you have no intention of ever using only to stifle competition.
I could be wrong about this, but it just sounds fishy to me.
Edited 2007-07-17 20:59
Member since:
2006-01-16
Sure, it looks like an interesting concept, nothing revolutionary, but interesting.
My question to every U.S. citizen: Do you like the fact that ideas like this get patented?
For me, this is just another example of how sick software patents are.